PEA -v- London Borough of Hillingdon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002978

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

12 May 2026

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

PEA

-v-

London Borough of Hillingdon

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, an extension of time to bring proceedings and for permission

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and by the Defendant

ORDER OF RICHARD CLAYTON KC,
SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as PEA.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. An extension of time to bring proceedings

    (a) The Claimant submits that the decision challenged is dated 15 May 2025, rendering the claim approximately two weeks out of time, and the Court is asked to grant an extension having regard to the merits of the claim and the Claimant’s asserted age of 16. The delay is explained by the chronology set out in the witness statement of the Claimant’s solicitor, Stuart Raymond Luke, including the timing of disclosure, pre‑action correspondence and difficulties in obtaining legal aid, which was not granted until 14 August 2025 following an initial refusal and review, delays said to be linked to the LAA cyber‑attack. Once funding was granted, the Claimant’s representatives acted promptly to prepare and issue the claim, and it is submitted that there is little or no prejudice to the Defendant in granting an extension of time.

    (b) This application is not opposed by the Defendant
  2. Permission is granted on all grounds.
  3. Transfer to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant alleges he is a putative child and has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Extension of time: This application is not opposed by the Defendant.
  3. Permission is granted
    a. The Claimant, a national of Ethiopia, asserts that he was born on 10 February 2009 and that he is therefore a child. He entered the UK on 7 April 2025 and claimed asylum.

    b. Following a brief age enquiry, the Defendant concluded that the Claimant was an adult and assessed his age as 23. The Defendant relied on observations of the Claimant’s physical appearance and demeanour and considered these to be consistent with an adult. The Defendant also relied on information from the Home Office, including an age assessment report which found the Claimant to be 23 years old, with an estimated date of birth of 10 February 2002. That report refers to the Claimant having given a different date of birth to Border Force officials on 2 April 2025, indicating that he was over 18.

    c. As a result of the Defendant’s age assessment decision dated 6 June 2024, the Defendant declined to provide the Claimant with services on the basis that he was not a child.

    d. The Claimant advances the following grounds:

    i. His age as a question of precedent fact and he contends that the Defendant’s age assessment is factually incorrect and that he is a child. He relies on his asserted date of birth and submits that the Defendant was wrong to conclude, following a brief enquiry, that he was an adult.
    ii. Unreasonable/unlawful failure to apply the benefit of the doubt/margin of appreciation. Relying on R (AB) v Kent CC [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin), the Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to properly account for the inherent margin of error in an abbreviated assessment based on appearance and demeanour and should either have treated him as a child or undertaken a full Merton‑compliant age assessment.
    iii. Significant reliance on physical appearance and demeanour in assessing his age, contrary to established case law and guidance recognising the inherent unreliability of such indicators.
    iv. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to conduct a lawful and fair “minded‑to” process.

Signed: RICHARD CLAYTON KC
Date: 12 May 2026